
Redefining Capital For Good: Katie Macc On What It Means To Lead In Impact
Katie Macc, CEO of the Sorenson Impact Institute, was honored by Utah Business as one of '30 Women ... More to Watch' in 2025.
As CEO of Sorenson Impact Institute, Katie Macc draws on her experience in multiple finance sectors, including microfinance, fintech, and impact investing across the globe. These perspectives help shape how she and her colleagues at the Institute approach their multidisciplinary work in impact investing.
'The biggest difference impact investing has made, I believe, is in changing hearts and minds. Most of us in finance and business weren't taught that there is another way—a better way—to do business, to do good, and to build a world in which we all want to live. Impact investing has consistently demonstrated the ability to do all of those things,' says Macc, who was recently honored by Utah Business as one of 30 Women to Watch.
At the Institute, Macc and her colleagues focus their work with partners around the world on moving capital toward solutions to some of our biggest challenges. She points to the Institute's work and connections with public and private organizations as key reasons for Utah's status as an innovator in the impact field. By collaborating with students, business leaders, entrepreneurs, and other organizations, the Institute contributes to the growth of the impact investing sector and its contributions to a better future.
Macc sees promise to expand the impact investing field by deepening its role in public markets, creating new opportunities for financial performance and stakeholder impact. To help drive this growth, the Institute is currently working on a number of strategic projects, including a multi-year Nature-based Solutions (NbS) initiative. 'There's a real opportunity in investing in nature,' she says. 'The financing gap in that sector is massive, and we believe it's a sector ripe for innovative financing solutions.'
In this Q&A, Macc discusses these initiatives and other opportunities she sees for the Sorenson Impact Institute and the impact investing sector as a whole.
You've been honored by Utah Business as one of '30 Women to Watch' in 2025. What does this accomplishment mean to you?
Receiving this honor is, in many ways, reflective of the key role that impact investing has had in the state of Utah. It's true, Utah is not necessarily at the top of everyone's list as a hub for impact investing—until you dig a little deeper. The state's economic success and business-friendly environment for entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes are relatively well-known. But the reality is the state has been at the forefront of impact investing in a number of ways—from public-private partnerships that were well ahead of the curve to new impact investing strategies for family offices and foundations to innovative approaches in philanthropy. None of this is to mention the huge innovations at the University of Utah, a place where aspirations for unsurpassed societal impact drive the entire campus. Our Institute began here more than 13 years ago and is now in a first-of-its-kind impact ecosystem that houses more than 750 students along with our headquarters. We were founded by Utah native and pioneer in impact, Jim Sorenson. Uniquely, and we think importantly, all of this is happening at a public university.
Receiving this honor acknowledges the pivotal role that all of these institutions across public and private sectors have had in growing Utah's leadership in impact investing. It's also an opportunity to introduce impact investing to even more people in Utah. I suspect many of the people who read Utah Business or attend the awards luncheon will be introduced to impact investing for the first time. I'm excited to represent the industry and the Institute in that room.
Where do you see the impact field making the biggest difference today?
The growth of impact investing has been impressive since its inception in the early 2000s. Once a somewhat radical idea of leveraging capital for good, the field has now influenced the direction of capital, policy, and culture across all sectors worldwide. Currently, the field represents a market of more than $1 trillion. While that's a big number, the biggest difference impact investing has made, I believe, is in changing hearts and minds. Most of us in finance and business weren't taught that there is another way—a better way—to do business, to do good, and to build a world in which we all want to live. Impact investing has consistently demonstrated the ability to do all of those things.
Moreover, impact investing catalyzes solutions to some of our most pressing challenges on a global scale. Those are big statements and are often received with even bigger skepticism. But where impact really stands out is in its accountability. We have the data because we measure and report the returns—both financial and social/environmental. There is still enormous work to be done, and we haven't reached the necessary scale to which we aspire, but the foundation and the measurable outcomes are there for all to see. We're growing, and I believe that growth is only going to escalate.
What initiatives and research projects is the Institute working on right now that you expect will help build the market for impact?
We are currently in the very early stages of several exciting new multi-year initiatives in spaces we find critical for exploration and direction. One that is particularly exciting for me is a large-scale initiative focused on Nature-based Solutions (NbS). Under this initiative, we are leveraging our long-standing expertise in impact finance with Janis Dubno and her team, along with the inclusion of world-renowned ecologist and National Geographic Explorer Dr. Nalini Nadkarni, who is now a Senior Fellow in Residence at the Institute.
As part of our NbS initiative, we are working on a series of applied research projects and initiatives seeking to more fully harness the power of nature to address pressing environmental and societal challenges. While there are a few proven financial models for NbS, there are still large gaps to meet global targets, presenting a significant opportunity for investors to generate financial returns as well as measurable environmental and social impact. We're talking with potential funders and collaborators now on these projects.
What do you see as the most significant opportunities right now for impact investing to grow?
From how and when we talk about impact investing to where we send our capital, I see several strategies to scale the field:
How can the impact investing ecosystem continue to build momentum amid shifting public policy and funding changes/challenges?
While we aren't a policy shop at the Institute, we recognize the essential role that the public sector can play in our work and our mission. There are some headwinds in this moment for impact investing that I don't want to minimize, but I believe there's a huge opportunity for the field to grow. Impact investors and social entrepreneurs aren't simply do-gooders who act on a moral compulsion to do the right thing; we invest in, build, and amplify practical and scalable solutions to the world's greatest challenges by leveraging capital as a force to drive positive change. Doing that at scale requires partnerships at all levels and across sectors. Political conditions change—sometimes rapidly—not just here in the United States but across the world. We stay the course and identify areas where we can work together to achieve our mission. In other words, some doors may close while others open.
Right now, there are numerous areas of overlap and bipartisan support in which we can and are working together toward solutions. One example is the ownership economy, which is creating the conditions by which more people in this country can generate wealth through areas like home ownership and employee ownership. The Sorenson Group, under Jim Sorenson's leadership, is heavily involved in this national effort, and we work in support of and in partnership with those goals.
Where do you find new ideas or inspiration for your work? What have you learned recently that has stuck with you?
I recently listened to the in-depth Acquired Podcast about the Rolex company, and everyone I've met with since is tired of hearing me talk about it. While it's true that I now want to purchase a Rolex watch, what has lingered in my mind since that podcast has been more about the structure of the company than the watches themselves. The legal and financial structures of the company allowed the executives to make decisions that I wish all company leadership could/would make. Hans Wilsdorf, the founder of Rolex, acquired that freedom for the company in 1960 when he gave the shares of the company to a private trust. For 65 years, the company has enjoyed the ability to make truly independent decisions, free from short-term shareholder interest, investor demands, or quarterly earnings calls.
I know that not all companies can follow in Rolex's or Patagonia's footsteps directly, but the Rolex story reminded me how important it is for entrepreneurs to choose the right legal and financial structures to facilitate their objectives. Whether their goals are long-term sustainability, stable job creation, social impact, returns to the community, or innovation within the company, it's critical that founders make sure their legal structure and financing will permit them to make the decisions they need to make in order to achieve them.
Connect with Katie Macc on LinkedIn.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
11 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Army leaders defend parade and border spending as Congress presses for answers
WASHINGTON — Army leaders on Wednesday defended spending as much as $45 million to add a parade to the service's 250th birthday celebration on June 14 in Washington, saying it will help boost recruitment, as Congress members argued that the money could be better spent on troops' barracks or other priorities. Members of the House Armed Services Committee also said they are concerned that the Defense Department is shifting about $1 billion from a variety of accounts — including base housing — to cover the costs of shoring up the defense of the southern border. Spending for the parade has become a flashpoint since it comes at a time when the Trump administration is slashing funding for personnel and programs across the federal government, including the Defense Department. While the Army has long planned for a festival on the National Mall to celebrate its 250th birthday, the parade was just recently added. President Donald Trump has long wanted a military parade in the city, after seeing an elaborate one in France on Bastille Day during his first presidential term, and June 14 is also his birthday. U.S. Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., questioned whether the additional cost of the parade was appropriate since all the military services are facing 8% budget cuts, and said perhaps it could be used to improve troops' quality of life or warfighting capabilities. He prodded Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll on what he would prioritize if Congress wrote him a blank check for $45 million. Driscoll replied that he thinks the parade offers a chance to tell the public about the Army. 'I believe very specifically that telling that story will directly lead to a recruiting boom and will fill up our pipeline for the coming years,' he said. At the same time, he and Gen. Randy George, chief of staff of the Army, told lawmakers that the service has now met its recruiting goal for the year — with 61,000 recruits. Army officials have predicted for months that they would hit the target early after making a series of changes to recruiting programs, recruiters and policies over the past several years. That prompted Rep. Wesley Bell, D-Mo., to ask why the parade was needed for recruiting if it's already surging. Driscoll said the Army believes the parade 'will empower an entire new generation of America's youth to catch the spirit to serve their nation.' Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wisc., defended the parade spending, saying 'you cannot put a price tag on patriotism.' House members on both sides of the aisle pressed the Army about a recent request to shift money from across the budget to support the southern border. The biggest concern, they said, is that it takes money away from base housing, which has been plagued with persistent problems, including mold, rodents and raw sewage in barracks. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., agreed the nation needs a strong border, but said lawmakers worked for the past year on a broad effort to address the housing problems. 'I feel like a decision was made that undermined this whole effort that we spent the last year doing.,' he said. Pressed on the issue by Carbajal, George acknowledged that redirecting the money has an impact on the barracks. 'If we took $1 billion out of barracks, we would be able to fix less barracks,' he agreed, but also said, ''You have to make choices, congressman.'

Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump proposes policies that would increase the soaring national debt
President Donald Trump is pursuing an agenda that would add trillions of dollars to the soaring national debt, ignoring warnings from Wall Street, Republican deficit hawks and his outgoing cost-cutting champion. Though Trump ran for office in part on pledges to slash the size of the federal government and rein in the debt, his record so far has been less fiscally disciplined.


CBS News
15 minutes ago
- CBS News
Hakeem Jeffries calls Elon Musk's attacks on Trump-backed budget bill "the stone-cold reality"
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New York Democrat, says he agrees with Elon Musk's characterization of President Trump's domestic policy bill as a "disgusting abomination," torching what he called a "Republican civil war" among GOP lawmakers in an interview with CBS News. "What Elon Musk said is the stone-cold reality," Jeffries said in an interview with "CBS Evening News" co-anchor Maurice DuBois of Mr. Trump's "big, beautiful bill" — which passed the House last month. "When you try to take away healthcare from more than 15 million Americans, that's a disgusting abomination," Jeffries said of the cuts to Medicaid included in the bill. "When you are endeavoring to rip food, literally, out of the mouths of children, veterans and seniors with the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history, that is a disgusting abomination. And it's certainly a disgusting abomination, when all of this is being done to provide massive tax breaks to their billionaire donors, and they're going to stick the American people with the bill and increase the debt by trillions of dollars." Musk's "disgusting abomination" comments came in a post on X Tuesday, calling the bill "outrageous" and "pork-filled." Musk and Jeffries' criticisms of the bill differ: Musk has attacked the legislation's price tag, while Jeffries has criticized its cuts to Medicaid and food stamp spending — though the Democratic leader has also pushed back on its cost. Musk previously criticized the bill last month, telling "CBS Sunday Morning" correspondent David Pogue he's "disappointed" by the bill's cost. His comments are striking because Musk was previously a key ally of President Trump, helping to lead the Trump administration's effort to reduce the size of the federal government. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has pushed back against Musk, defending the bill and calling his criticisms "flat wrong." Musk's criticisms come as Senate Republicans prepare to take up the domestic policy bill, which extends Mr. Trump's signature 2017 tax cuts, imposes work requirements on some Medicaid recipients, adds new restrictions to food stamps and boosts border spending. Some senators are pushing for changes — including a few who are skeptical of its changes to Medicaid. Any changes passed by the Senate will also need to be approved by the House. "What we see right now is a Republican civil war," Jeffries said. "Elon Musk is attacking the GOP tax scam, this reckless budget that's going to hurt everyday Americans. House Republicans are attacking Senate Republicans, Senate Republicans are attacking House Republicans." See more from the interview with Jeffries on the "CBS Evening News" Thursday.